Whatever the Supreme Court decides about the individual mandate, the main battle remains to be fought: how to rein in the grotesque costs of the current system.

Reuters

It's hard to find anyone who defends the structure of American health care. Every incentive is misaligned. Patients have little incentive to be prudent
in their use of services, or to pay the costs of their own unhealthy lifestyle. Under the fee-for-service model, doctors and hospitals get paid more
the more they do. Fear of random lawsuits causes them to practice "defensive medicine," and chills open interaction with patients and other
professionals. Insurance companies make more money by denying claims.

These misaligned incentives, most experts believe, are largely responsible for the notorious inefficiency of American health care -- costing more than
$8,000 per person, or twice what most other countries spend. The total tab -- $2.6 trillion in 2010, or 18 percent of GDP -- is substantially responsible for
America's trillion-dollar deficits. The federal government pays roughly a third of the total national health care bill, mostly through Medicare
(health care for the elderly) and Medicaid (health care for the poor). It also spends hundreds of billions -- $177 billion in 2011 -- in tax expenditures for
employer-provided health insurance.

Instead of aligning human incentives, the structure tries to contain costs through bureaucratic restrictions. Reimbursement schedules are managed
through complex computer programs. In 2014, if not sooner, the federal government will add over 120,000 separate health care reimbursement categories,
including 21 separate classifications for "spacecraft accidents" and 12 for bee stings. This bureaucracy is expensive, and skews incentives even more.
For example, Medicare will cover the cost of a registered dietician if patients already have diabetes or kidney disease, but it won't pay for referrals to a dietician for obesity alone -- this despite the fact that obesity is a leading contributor to diabetes, kidney disease and scores of other costly ailments.
Almost every aspect of health care bureaucracy is hateful. Doctors say they spend a third of their time on paperwork. Patients are driven to tears by
the cold calculations of incomprehensible reimbursement guidelines.

The Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, strives for universal coverage. While it encourages pilots for more efficient delivery systems, the overall
effect is to exacerbate the unaffordability of American health care. In this sense, the upcoming Supreme Court decision on constitutionality is just a
side skirmish. Whatever the Court decides, the main battle remains to be fought: how to conquer the grotesque inefficiency of health care.

Circling around this giant orb of self-destructive habits, skewed incentives, and bureaucracy, it is easy to see many possible areas for change. About
75 percent of health care costs are attributed to chronic disease (a significant portion of which is brought on by obesity and smoking). About 30
percent of Medicare costs are spent in a patient's last year of life. Health care bureaucracy is estimated to account for as little as 14 percent and as
much as 31 percent of costs. Then there's the cost attributable to legal fear from unreliable justice and reimbursement fraud that's easy to hide in
the bureaucratic jungle. These numbers add up to more than 100 percent, because they overlap. The bottom line is bloated costs: an appendectomy here
costs more than four times what it does in Germany. What these facts reveal is a vast range of opportunity for creative new approaches -- from better
dietary habits to better justice.

But change will require new structures and institutions, not tweaks to the current system. That's the only way to disrupt the wasteful habits of the
status quo. I have two specific proposals for new frameworks. The first is now broadly accepted by health care thought and political leaders of both
sides, including President Obama and Mitt Romney, but has been stymied so far by a powerful special interest. The second is radical, and would be
considered politically suicidal. It would also solve much of the problem of misaligned incentives.

PROPOSAL ONE: Create Special Health Courts

Distrust of justice is pervasive among doctors and care providers. A 2002 Harris Interactive survey revealed that 83 percent of physicians didn't trust
the current medical justice system to reach reasonable results. And the distrust is more than warranted: studies show an error rate of about 25 percent in health care claims.

One effect of this distrust is to raise costs by the practice of "defensive medicine" -- ordering tests and procedures that aren't needed in order to
provide a defense in case there's a lawsuit. Defensive medicine is notoriously hard to measure, both because of mixed motives (sometimes doctors make
more money from the tests) and because the defensive practices have become standard practice. Estimates vary from about $45 billion to over $200
billion annually. A 2005 survey in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that 93 percent of high-risk specialists in Pennsylvania
admitted to the practice.

Defensiveness also impacts patient safety, by stifling open interaction among health care professionals. A 1999 Institute of Medicine report concluded
that a defensive mindset was one of the major contributors to an estimated 44,000-98,000 unnecessary deaths each year in America's hospitals. Doctors
are reluctant to question things that seem amiss -- Are you sure that's the right dosage? Speaking up might lead to legal responsibility.

What's needed is a system of health justice that is reliable: it must be trusted to reliably sort good care from bad care. Tort reform, which limits
pain and suffering damages, does not overcome the problem of distrust. Tort reform helps reduce doctors' malpractice insurance premiums, but does not
make justice predictable -- a doctor can still be liable for millions for a tragic disease that the doctor did not cause. That's why defensive medicine
is prevalent in states with tort reform.

The solution, widely embraced by providers as well as patient advocates,
is to create reliable health courts. America has a long history of special courts -- e.g., tax courts, workers' compensation tribunals, family courts.

In administrative health courts, an expert judge (not a jury) would decide cases based on best medical practice, writing an opinion that is subject to
appeal to an appellate health court. Among other features, there would be a requirement of full disclosure by hospitals, and all facts would be fed
back into the health care system so providers learn from their mistakes.

All constituencies benefit: doctors can trust the system to defend their reasonable actions. Patients injured by mistakes can get justice within a
year, not the five years it takes today. Legal costs, which today consume more than half the malpractice dollar, would be cut in half. Health care
expenses would no longer be inflated by defensive practices. Doctors would feel comfortable being open and candid with patients and each other.

So far the proposal has been stymied by...you'll never guess. The trial lawyers are so powerful that they prevented even pilot projects from
being included in the Affordable Care Act. The act specifically excluded funding of any pilot project that replaced the jury.

Health courts will not correct all of the misaligned incentives in health care, but they are a necessary condition of any coherent system. It is
impossible to align incentives while doctors go through the day listening to a little lawyer on their shoulders instead of acting on their best
judgment.

PROPOSAL TWO: Replace Public Health Care with Comprehensive Providers

Medicare and Medicaid, like private health plans, are based on an insurance model. The patient goes to a doctor or hospital, which gets reimbursed
based on a byzantine bureaucratic model that drives everyone nuts and leads to constant legal bickering. This fee-for-service model misaligns
incentives towards more care.

The way to align incentives, many experts agree, is by providing care through a single provider -- known in jargon as an "accountable health care
organization" or an "integrated care provider." Instead of being paid a fee for each service, the provider is paid a fixed annual price to do
everything for the patient (with limited exceptions for catastrophic care). Instead of making more money by dialysis and amputation of limbs of
patients with diabetes, the provider now has an incentive to keep the patient healthier by nudging them towards better lifestyles. The provider hires
social workers in lieu of more surgeons.

Comprehensive providers are not a radical concept. The Kaiser health system in California works this way. The Veterans Health Administration (VA) is a
public model. Several states, including Texas and New York, are moving to integrated care providers for all Medicaid recipients.

I believe Medicare and Medicaid should be provided by an integrated care provider instead of on a fee-for-service insurance model. The care would
likely be equivalent or better, but the reason to abandon the current structure is, in my view, that the waste of public dollars today is indefensible.
Medicare and Medicaid, like the VA, are state-run social health care systems--but unlike the VA, today they are run on a fee-for-service model that Dr.
Donald Berwick, the former administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, estimates wastes $150 to $250 billion on "activities that
don't have any value."

Every public dollar involves moral choice. One dollar wasted in inefficient public health care is a dollar not available for, say, pre-K education. The
deficit we're running because of profligate health care spending is not an abstraction. We are crushing the next generation under debt incurred solely
because we lack the discipline to provide public health care efficiently.

The integrated care provider in my proposal would likely be a private organization, such as Kaiser, which gets a government contract to provide care to
Medicaid recipients in a given area at a fixed per capita cost. There could even be several providers, to stimulate competition. But at any point the
patient would have one provider, just as most of us do business with one bank. The advantages are transparent: there would be virtually no
reimbursement bureaucracy, and the incentives would be aligned towards health, not expensive treatments. Government would provide oversight, to make
sure services were provided as promised.

As a nod to political and practical realities, the transition to public integrated care providers should be phased in over 5-10 years. Medicare
recipients today need not fear disruption -- they can stay on it forever. Those under 60 today will have the choice of a single provider when they reach
65. It is also possible to give Medicare recipients the choice of an integrated provider, or a voucher of the sort proposed by Cong. Paul Ryan and Sen. Ron Wyden.

I believe in providing health care to everyone. If people cannot afford health care themselves, then the responsible alternative, given other public
needs, is to provide it in the most cost-effective way. Today, we are providing care in the least cost-effective way. This is profoundly immoral, in my
opinion, and requires a new approach to providing public health care.

About the Author

Most Popular

After a year of uncertainty and unhappiness, the president is reportedly feeling more comfortable—but has he really mastered the job?

It was a fun weekend for Donald Trump. Late on Friday, Attorney General Jeff Sessions fired Andrew McCabe, the outgoing FBI deputy director whom Trump had long targeted, and the president spent the rest of the weekend taking victory laps: cheering McCabe’s departure, taking shots at his former boss and mentor James Comey, and renewing his barrage against Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

Trump’s moods shift quickly, but over the last week or so, a different overarching feel has manifested itself, a meta-mood. Although he remains irritated by Mueller and any number of other things, Trump seems to be relishing the latest sound of chaos, “leaning into the maelstrom,” as McKay Coppins put it Friday. This is rooted, Maggie Haberman reports, in a growing confidence on the president’s part: “A dozen people close to Mr. Trump or the White House, including current and former aides and longtime friends, described him as newly emboldened to say what he really feels and to ignore the cautions of those around him.”

How evangelicals, once culturally confident, became an anxious minority seeking political protection from the least traditionally religious president in living memory

One of the most extraordinary things about our current politics—really, one of the most extraordinary developments of recent political history—is the loyal adherence of religious conservatives to Donald Trump. The president won four-fifths of the votes of white evangelical Christians. This was a higher level of support than either Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush, an outspoken evangelical himself, ever received.

Trump’s background and beliefs could hardly be more incompatible with traditional Christian models of life and leadership. Trump’s past political stances (he once supported the right to partial-birth abortion), his character (he has bragged about sexually assaulting women), and even his language (he introduced the words pussy and shithole into presidential discourse) would more naturally lead religious conservatives toward exorcism than alliance. This is a man who has cruelly publicized his infidelities, made disturbing sexual comments about his elder daughter, and boasted about the size of his penis on the debate stage. His lawyer reportedly arranged a $130,000 payment to a porn star to dissuade her from disclosing an alleged affair. Yet religious conservatives who once blanched at PG-13 public standards now yawn at such NC-17 maneuvers. We are a long way from The Book of Virtues.

Invented centuries ago in France, the bidet has never taken off in the States. That might be changing.

“It’s been completely Americanized!” my host declares proudly. “The bidet is gone!” In my time as a travel editor, this scenario has become common when touring improvements to hotels and resorts around the world. My heart sinks when I hear it. To me, this doesn’t feel like progress, but prejudice.

Americans seem especially baffled by these basins. Even seasoned American travelers are unsure of their purpose: One globe-trotter asked me, “Why do the bathrooms in this hotel have both toilets and urinals?” And even if they understand the bidet’s function, Americans often fail to see its appeal. Attempts to popularize the bidet in the United States have failed before, but recent efforts continue—and perhaps they might even succeed in bringing this Old World device to new backsides.

A new six-part Netflix documentary is a stunning dive into a utopian religious community in Oregon that descended into darkness.

To describe Wild Wild Country as jaw-dropping is to understate the number of times my mouth gaped while watching the series, a six-part Netflix documentary about a religious community in Oregon in the 1980s. It’s ostensibly the story of how a group led by the dynamic Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh purchased 64,000 acres of land in central Oregon in a bid to build its own utopian city. But, as the series immediately reveals, the narrative becomes darker and stranger than you might ever imagine. It’s a tale that mines the weirdness of the counterculture in the ’70s and ’80s, the age-old conflict between rural Americans and free love–preaching cityfolk, and the emotional vacuum that compels people to interpret a bearded mystic as something akin to a god.

Among the more practical advice that can be offered to international travelers is wisdom of the bathroom. So let me say, as someone who recently returned from China, that you should be prepared to one, carry your own toilet paper and two, practice your squat.

I do not mean those goofy chairless sits you see at the gym. No, toned glutes will not save you here. I mean the deep squat, where you plop your butt down as far as it can go while staying aloft and balanced on the heels. This position—in contrast to deep squatting on your toes as most Americans naturally attempt instead—is so stable that people in China can hold it for minutes and perhaps even hours ...

The first female speaker of the House has become the most effec­tive congressional leader of modern times—and, not coinciden­tally, the most vilified.

Last May, TheWashington Post’s James Hohmann noted “an uncovered dynamic” that helped explain the GOP’s failure to repeal Obamacare. Three current Democratic House members had opposed the Affordable Care Act when it first passed. Twelve Democratic House members represent districts that Donald Trump won. Yet none voted for repeal. The “uncovered dynamic,” Hohmann suggested, was Nancy Pelosi’s skill at keeping her party in line.

She’s been keeping it in line for more than a decade. In 2005, George W. Bush launched his second presidential term with an aggressive push to partially privatize Social Security. For nine months, Republicans demanded that Democrats admit the retirement system was in crisis and offer their own program to change it. Pelosi refused. Democratic members of Congress hosted more than 1,000 town-hall meetings to rally opposition to privatization. That fall, Republicans backed down, and Bush’s second term never recovered.

As the Trump presidency approaches a troubling tipping point, it’s time to find the right term for what’s happening to democracy.

Here is something that, even on its own, is astonishing: The president of the United States demanded the firing of the former FBI deputy director, a career civil servant, after tormenting him both publicly and privately—and it worked.

The American public still doesn’t know in any detail what Andrew McCabe, who was dismissed late Friday night, is supposed to have done. But citizens can see exactly what Donald Trump did to McCabe. And the president’s actions are corroding the independence that a healthy constitutional democracy needs in its law enforcement and intelligence apparatus.

McCabe’s firing is part of a pattern. It follows the summary removal of the previous FBI director and comes amid Trump’s repeated threats to fire the attorney general, the deputy attorney, and the special counsel who is investigating him and his associates. McCabe’s ouster unfolded against a chaotic political backdrop that includes Trump’s repeated calls for investigations of his political opponents, demands of loyalty from senior law-enforcement officials, and declarations that the job of those officials is to protect him from investigation.

Middle-class African American families aren’t spending as much on groceries as white families, and the reason isn’t a lack of money, but a lack of options.

Rich Americans spend their money differently than poor Americans—no great surprise there. But the differences in how families spend go beyond earnings. For instance, rich white families spend more on entertainment and groceries than rich black families. And black families at all income levels spend more on things that require a long-term contract, such as electricity and heating services, than white families at corresponding income levels.

These discrepancies illustrate an under-recognized aspect of racial inequality: Blacks don’t just tend to earn less than whites. Even when they earn as much, they seem to still have less access to goods and services than their white peers do.

That’s the finding of a paper by the sociologists Raphaël Charron-Chénier, Joshua J. Fink, and Lisa A. Keister of Duke University, who used data from the Consumer Expenditure Survey to assess the spending habits of white and black households in 2013 and 2014. They argue that access to credit, retail deserts, and discrimination could be major factors in why blacks spend less, in aggregate, than whites. Only one of these challenges—access to credit—is mitigated when black families earn more money.

Days before the 1960 election, Coretta Scott King received a call from then-candidate John F. Kennedy while her husband was in a Georgia jail, charged with trespassing after leading a sit-in demonstration against segregation in Atlanta. “This must be pretty hard on you, and I want to let you both know that I’m thinking about you and will do all I can to help,” Kennedy told her. The Democratic nominee’s brother and campaign manager, Robert Kennedy, called a DeKalb County Judge and successfully lobbied for Martin Luther King Jr.’s release.

The personal call and the timely intervention significantly bolstered Kennedy’s standing among black voters. They also strengthened the political alliance between the Democratic Party and African Americans. After his release, King praised Kennedy for exhibiting “moral courage of a high order.” His father, the influential Baptist pastor Martin Luther King Sr., said, “Kennedy can be my president, Catholic or whatever he is. I’ve got all my votes and I’ve got a suitcase and I’m going to take them up there and dump them in his lap.” Kennedy earned 68 percent of the black vote, which was the decisive factor in key states like Illinois, Michigan, and South Carolina.